01-19-2016, 02:52 PM
(01-19-2016, 11:33 AM)Vlad Wrote: Shallow? Has nothing to do with being shallow.
It absolutely does. Unless it's due to ignorance. Take your pick.
(01-19-2016, 11:33 AM)Vlad Wrote: Knife slipped? lol. You can throw in as many hypotheticals as you want to defend your foreskin. Cmon man.
There are no long term health issues resulting from male circumcision.
The idea of it being unclean or diseased is a hypothetical as well. And there are a number of reported long term health effects found through studies, as someone has already pointed out.
(01-19-2016, 11:33 AM)Vlad Wrote: The idea of cleanliness came along with the religious and ritualistic aspects of male circumcision. It wasn't like it started out only as a religious thing.
The reason it was called 'clean' is because that is the terminology from the Hebrew Bible for everything associated with the Mitzvot. Beef and sheep is clean, pig is unclean, circumcised men are clean, uncircumcised men are unclean, menstruating women are unclean, etc. It wasn't clean as in the hygiene sense, it was clean as in the religious sense.
Prior to that in prehistorical societies, it was most likely done much like female circumcision today. It was a sacrifice, a right of passage into manhood. We know this because of it still existing as such in some primitive cultures that have had limited contact with the outside world.
So yeah, it started off as a religious thing, became about hygiene, and now we know a bit more about it all. This isn't to say there aren't studies showing benefits to circumcision. Those do exist. The issue is that we don't know how accurate these are, and we also have studies showing negative impacts as well. This is why I say there is no justifiable reason for it other than religious/social, because we don't really have anything firm (heh, see what I did there?) to go on as for the actual medical benefits outweighing the negatives.
